Are you a photographer or an artist?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Browncoat

Senior Member
In light of a recent forum suggestion, here is a topic that we have touched on a few times in previous discussions. Our interpretations of how to define art, and our differences in technique as photographers. While we share the same medium of photography, our artistic visions can vary greatly. Some prefer raw, pure, unaltered imagery while others toil away in their digital darkrooms. What is the gap that separates us? Are you a photographer or an artist? How would you classify yourself?
pho tog ra pher - noun: a person who takes photographs, either as a profession or as a hobby.

art ist - noun: a person who produces works in any of the arts that are primarily subject to aesthetic criteria.
For the sake of this discussion, we will also follow the World English Dictionary definition of art: the production, expression, or realm of (according to aesthetic principals) what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance. Loosely translated, a famous French poet once said that art is the visual representation of that which can not be expressed with words. Regardless of what any of us personally consider to be art, the general premise is the same; that its purpose is to be sensually appealing, and to evoke emotion.

There is overlap between the photographer and the artist. But I also would argue that there is, in fact, a difference. Such as between the architect and the sculptor, or the graphic designer and the painter. The goal of both is the same, but the journey is very different. When the camera is in your hand, are you checking lighting, settings, and looking for rules of composition? Is your eye drawn to contrasting colors, repetitions in patterns, or the uniqueness of a scene?

More than anything else: What catches your attention? What is it about that particular moment that makes you press the shutter button? You have been waiting for this moment, passing by many others in anticipation of it. So what is it about right now that makes it special? Yes, all situations are different. Crossing the finish line at the end of the big race. The perfect sunset. A baby's eyes opening for the first time. A rusty old tractor. These scenes are all very different, but there is something in all of them that makes you capture them on film. Because the odds are very high that if someone else were in your shoes at that exact moment...they would do something completely different.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

jdeg

^ broke something
Staff member
hrm - I'm an amateur photographer that gets a good shot once in a while and runs websites :)
 

karlyh

New member
For me.......and given the fact that I like to create... and as 'aesthetic' given as the operative word for art. I'd have to say artist first. And is probably why I'm only now learning the technical aspect of photography. I go for what is pleasing to me first. And now makes me wonder if I've become stuck because while trying to learn technique, I've noticed, too... I'm trying to take photos like everyone else. If I could make all my photos look old/antique and or primitive as I like my arts and crafts to be... I'd be happy. But what does that really say as a photographer. Would I just be one of those pretenders??..lol
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Browncoat

Senior Member
If I could make all my photos look old/antique and or primitive as I like my arts and crafts to be... I'd be happy. But what does that really say as a photographer. Would I just be one of those pretenders??..lol

The "vintage look" is very trendy right now, even with wedding photographers. From Lomo to washed out and everything in between. What is stopping you from making your photos look old or antique? Are you limited by technology, IE: Photoshop or your camera? Is it a lack of things to photograph? Or are you afraid of following a trend?

I have been a student and practitioner of art for most of my life. One thing I know for certain is that no one else can tell you what you like. Every artist develops their own style over time, be it from emulating others and experimenting with variations or by making many mistakes. Being an artist means having a stiff upper lip. You have to be able to take criticism with a grain of salt, which can be hard to do when you're passionate about what you've created.
 

LensWork

Senior Member
I consider myself a photographer, not an artist. I feel that to be an artist, one must create. I capture and document moments, events, scenes, etc. My background in photojournalism prohibits me from "creating", or staging an image. Is there a certain amount of artistry in capturing an image that is distinctly different than those of the other shooters that may be present at the same event? Sure. But this alone does not make me an artist. By the same token, I fully subscribe to the notion that NOT everyone that owns a camera and takes pictures is a photographer. A photographer "sees" in ways that others may not. As a photographer, I saw the juxtaposition of the homeless person, wrapped in a blanket, asleep on the bus stop bench with the advertisement ironically asking "Why settle for daily bread?"

Daily_Bread.jpg
© 1987 Michael A. Lawhon

I have tremendous respect for those that are creative, those who have the gift of true artistry; I am just not amongst them.
 

Browncoat

Senior Member
In addition to that being a great photograph, your post was very well construed and articulated. I also think you're completely wrong.

The word creative can be taken at face value, as in one who creates. Creativity is also the result of originality of thought, using one's imagination, or expressing something through non-verbal means. In the above photo, you have done all of that. The scene was there, yes...but you created the photograph. The camera is just a medium, no different than a painter's brush or sculptor's clay. You saw the scene, had an artistic vision, and used the camera to reproduce what was seen by your mind's eye.

How is this any different than the aforementioned painter or sculptor?
 

LensWork

Senior Member
In addition to that being a great photograph, your post was very well construed and articulated. I also think you're completely wrong.

The word creative can be taken at face value, as in one who creates. Creativity is also the result of originality of thought, using one's imagination, or expressing something through non-verbal means. In the above photo, you have done all of that. The scene was there, yes...but you created the photograph. The camera is just a medium, no different than a painter's brush or sculptor's clay. You saw the scene, had an artistic vision, and used the camera to reproduce what was seen by your mind's eye.

How is this any different than the aforementioned painter or sculptor?

Thank you very much. I guess that I just have never considered myself "creative", just perhaps more "observant" than some.

BTW, great topic! I am glad that you started this discussion, and hopefully it will garner much input from the members.
 

ohkphoto

Snow White
I like the distinction that Anthony makes regarding "photography as a medium." I think the "aesthetic principles" is an important part of the definition of art --how many of us use the rule of thirds in our photography? That comes straight from "art theory". Even photojournalists use aesthetic principles, sometimes on a subconscious level. I'd like to throw in an addendum to the definition of art (from Wikipedia) : art is made with the intention of stimulating thoughts and emotions

I'm so glad that LensWork posted a photo (a really great one) and here is my analysis of it from an artistic stance:

1. My eye is first drawn to the sign because it is the brightest. But I know it can't be the most important element because it's not in the middle and what's in the middle is pretty big.
2. What is the significance between the sign and the "lump" (It's really not recognizable as a person at this point) and the lump does look like a giant loaf of bread --so there is your repeating element or visual rhyme --the word "bread" and the person on the bench shaped like a loaf of bread.
3. I then begin to explore the rest of the picture and notice --this might be a subway because of the horizontal area on the bottom and the dingy darkness, which then leads me to notice that the lump is on a bench. And the dead giveaway is the word "shelter" in lights in the background. So now I realize this is probably a homeless person.
4. Even though the homeless person is in the center of the photo which is a place of prominence, his/her face is not shown, and therefore, he is an insignificant, "faceless" lump.
5. So at this point, I've discovered the relationship among all the elements and I feel empathy and sadness for the person on the bench.

So, LensWork, were you an artist when you made this photo? Absolutely, in my opinion. This photo evokes curiosity, analysis and emotion.

(Does this sound like I need to get a life? LOL)
 

ohkphoto

Snow White
I'm trying to take photos like everyone else. If I could make all my photos look old/antique and or primitive as I like my arts and crafts to be... I'd be happy. But what does that really say as a photographer. Would I just be one of those pretenders??..lol

I think that what you're doing right now is exploring your photography techniques much like an artist/painter tries out a new brush --he tests it out before he makes a work of art. So you are absolutely on track. You already have a vision, i.e. you go for what is pleasing to you, so whenever you take "photos like everyone else", remember you're just "playing with your brushes" --when you feel confident with your camera technique, you'll get closer to what you want in your photos. You're not a pretender :)

Good post, Karlyh
 

Browncoat

Senior Member
...Even photojournalists use aesthetic principles, sometimes on a subconscious level...

This brings up another good point. In broad terms, there are only three basic types of photography:

  • Photojournalism
  • Commercial
  • Fine art
Typically, photojournalism is visual support for print media. Many photographers have been made famous using this style and it has become able to stand on its own without accompanying print to a certain extent. Commercial photography is used to sell products or services, such as stock photography. Even most studio work can be thrown in here, because taking photos of seniors and weddings are paying gigs, which makes them commercial. So where does that leave the rest? Fine art.

The Masters referred to art as that “which reflects nature in its truest form”. A photograph achieves this goal more accurately than any other medium. Typically, when we think of fine art photography, most of us gravitate towards Ansel Adams or those who have become famous for their portrait nudes. A photograph does not have to have to be hanging in a gallery with a price tag on it in order to be considered art.

I think where the lines begin to blur when people think of art is that it must be appreciated and labeled as such by others, as if it's not art unless someone else says so. Picasso didn't paint for others, he painted for himself. Incidentally, he at one time he also said: I have discovered photography. Now I can kill myself. I have nothing else to learn. Picasso understood that photography was the ultimate expression of life and realism, something he had been trying to express through paintings for years.
 

ZakSaenzPhotography

Senior Member
Here is my take on this question as it relates to some specific fads and trends that seam to be infused throughout differing areas of photography today. Here is how I look at it. Is your main objective in your photography to preserve or accurately replicate the event or subject in which you are photographing (hence photographer) or is your photography the media in which you use in order to then transform it into something other than an accurate representation of what was photographed (hence art). This is just my opinion.

Zak
 

ohkphoto

Snow White
[/LIST]Picasso didn't paint for others, he painted for himself. Incidentally, he at one time he also said: I have discovered photography. Now I can kill myself. I have nothing else to learn. .

Well, he should have hung around for DIGITAL photography.

All good points in your post, Anthony.

Blurred lines are exactly what we're talking about. Perhaps the art question has to do with intent and emotion . . . we make a photograph of something because it moves us in some way, and the emotion does not have to be a positive one. How many times have we heard the debates and controversy about "appropriate" art -- the artist is on one end hollering "my vision", the public and board of directors are on the other yelling "you can NOT display the Virgin Mary with bare breasts" (we actually had this in Santa Fe)

Photojournalism
Commercial
Fine art
I don't think the lines of demarcation are very clear here anymore. I do think that the same photograph can actually belong to more than one of these categories.

So, using the definitions that you set forth in this thread, I use the medium of photography to express a vision whether I am shooting still life or a portrait in my studio, or caturing an extraordinary landscape scene outside. So I like to think of myself as an artist. . . if I'm lucky and work hard, I like my work. And then other times it's just experimental "crap".
 

Browncoat

Senior Member
Is your main objective in your photography to preserve or accurately replicate the event or subject in which you are photographing (hence photographer) or is your photography the media in which you use in order to then transform it into something other than an accurate representation of what was photographed (hence art).

Excellent observation! And in most cases, I would absolutely agree with your differentiation between the two. However, there have been some exceptional photographers who were able to do both in the same image, such as Ansel Adams.

His nature photography was so striking, it was considered fine art. Yet at the same time, his dodge and burn techniques and understanding of light made them almost larger than life.
 

ZakSaenzPhotography

Senior Member
Excellent observation! And in most cases, I would absolutely agree with your differentiation between the two. However, there have been some exceptional photographers who were able to do both in the same image, such as Ansel Adams.

His nature photography was so striking, it was considered fine art. Yet at the same time, his dodge and burn techniques and understanding of light made them almost larger than life.

I agree with you that there can be a cross over at times from great photography too art but I think the reverse when it deals with photo minipulation as art can't be because the photography has been so obscured.

Zak
 

karlyh

New member
The "vintage look" is very trendy right now, even with wedding photographers. From Lomo to washed out and everything in between. What is stopping you from making your photos look old or antique? Are you limited by technology, IE: Photoshop or your camera? Is it a lack of things to photograph? Or are you afraid of following a trend?

I think I could practice enough and I suppose I have on a few to get a look that would please me... I guess I just want to make sure that I begin with good photos, that the photography is how it should be and then work on effects. I've seen some messed up photos with loads of editing done, which looks like someone just trying to cover up a bad photo....sometimes the result is successful... most of the time, not. But I must stress that is just my opinion....to others, maybe it is art. Just not my cup of tea.
Thanks Anthony for your encouragement, as always!
 

Eduard

Super Mod
Staff member
Super Mod
To paraphrase a great song by Eric Clapton, I'm a photographer but I have an artist heart.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top